Halo 3

In seriousness, I'd rather buy Halo 2 and 3 than ever trust Sony again.

Actually the worst fools.

There was a true piece of text one one page though;

"We should demand something new, something different in our games. Don’t just add a number to the title, change the graphics and the maps and maybe adding a new weapon or two, and then call it 'NewOldGame 3' *CoughHalo3Cough*. It’s almost like what is going on with the movie industry now days. How many remakes or sequels have you see at the box office in the last 5 years? (Way too many to even count).".

-AC

Punk ass Sony ftw. And they honestly have nothing to say. What Final fantasy are they on, now? 14? Please. They need to learn a little something about originality themselves. Sony THRIVES on Franchises, meaning, sequel after repetitive sequel after repetitive sequel.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Shin_Blax
Punk ass Sony ftw. And they honestly have nothing to say. What Final fantasy are they on, now? 14? Please. They need to learn a little something about originality themselves. Sony THRIVES on Franchises, meaning, sequel after repetitive sequel after repetitive sequel.

Sony didn't say the part I quoted.

-AC

Eh. I've read that in PSM and and that seems to be most of the Pro-Sony Anti-Microsoft people's arguments. "OMG Halo 3 sucks 'cause it's like Halo 1 but with better graphicz!".

Originally posted by Lana
Technically, Bioshock itself is not a hugely innovative game as everything in it had been done before in System Shock 2. The two games are identical with just a different setting and a huge graphics and AI upgrade. Even the plot is near-identical. If you don't believe me, go ask Ush.

But very few people have even heard of SS2, let alone played it. And the things done in those two games had never been done before in a shooter before SS2, nor had ever been done since until Bioshock came along.

Actually, just to blab even more abouut this than I have in the Bioshock thread...

... technically that's not true, that SS2 pioneered it. What SS2 added was the shock technqiue, the use of sound and motion and crumbling scenery etc. to add to immersion and weird out the player.

But:

-

FPS shooting mixed with develping elements

Setting with big egomaniac psycho taunting you throughout

Discovery of plot via recorded messages

Security cameras, locked doors, turrets, bot systems

Ressurection chambers

Hacking subgame

-

All of this actually came from the original System Shock.

The point is, and I think this is something AC may not know, Bioshock would have been System Shock III had the makers not lost the license. But it is still basically the same game they are making, just updated again. Bioshock has an innovative setting, which is appreciated. Absolutely everything else in it is straight sequel stuff. They did precisely what AC quotes above, except instead of changing the number they changed the front half of the name. And as lana already mentioned- they also use the same darn plot twist, which is a real shame. Your role in both games is identical, relative to the setting.

Bioshock is good because it is the culmination of an evolution that goes all the way back to Ultima Underworld. But if ANY game can receive the criticism "This is just Newoldgame 3", it is Bioshock. We can only give it so much leeway for a setting change; it's gameplay is 100% identical to its predecessors (and in SS2's case, made by almost the exact same people).

So I doubt we can be harsh on Halo.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Just to change the mood...

wiki! Wiki! WIKI!

I think it's funny. 😛

Haha, yeah I saw that earlier. Funny stuff.

I dunno what Sony's thinking, most of the time. Everytime they do something it backfires all over their face.

Ush to the rescue? 😛

Well I do think a lot of people have missed this about Bioshock.

Indeed. System Shock wasn't too famous of a game, I guess. Either that or the name change threw a lot of people off.

Company change as well, because of the complex licensing issue with SS3. But the same programming team, and the 'shock' part of the name was deliberate.

I will actually do a review on Bioshock to explain the lineage- goes back a long way.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
All of this actually came from the original System Shock.

The point is, and I think this is something AC may not know, Bioshock would have been System Shock III had the makers not lost the license. But it is still basically the same game they are making, just updated again. Bioshock has an innovative setting, which is appreciated. Absolutely everything else in it is straight sequel stuff. They did precisely what AC quotes above, except instead of changing the number they changed the front half of the name. And as lana already mentioned- they also use the same darn plot twist, which is a real shame. Your role in both games is identical, relative to the setting.

Bioshock is good because it is the culmination of an evolution that goes all the way back to Ultima Underworld. But if ANY game can receive the criticism "This is just Newoldgame 3", it is Bioshock. We can only give it so much leeway for a setting change; it's gameplay is 100% identical to its predecessors (and in SS2's case, made by almost the exact same people).

So I doubt we can be harsh on Halo.

I never said it was an entirely original game because I know of the preceeding games, I said it was one of the most innovative games today because it is. It has set change and in many ways it is ahead of its time.

The gameplay is hardly 100% identical or it would actually be System Shock III with nothing else added and exactly the same everything. It's a spiritual successor in that it would have been a sequel, sure, but it still would have been a sequel that pushed boundaries further in a fashion, as two did before it and one did before that. One thing we can agree on is that in today's gaming climate, and in many ways, Bioshock is an innovative game, by definition. The reason it's called a spiritual successor and not System Shock III is BECAUSE it is different in enough ways to set it apart.

Halo 3 is not an evolution, nor is it part of one. Even if Bioshock was System Shock III with exactly the same everything, setting included, it would still be part of a game franchise that is responsible for being innovative and pushing boundaries. Halo isn't, nor will it ever be. So if anything, what you're saying just reinforces my argument, you can have a three installment franchise and still push boundaries with each game in some way, Halo isn't doing that.

Besides, ok, so a lot of Bioshock's features have been seen in the prior games, but those games were the only games, and created by the people who more or less made Bioshock. It's not as if you can go to someone and say "Where have you seen this, this and this in another game?" and they'd say "Oh yeah, here, here and here." with regards to FPS.

If you think people are giving Bioshock too much credit, I can semi-agree on the originality front BECAUSE of the games that came before, but originality wasn't my argument, innovation was, of which originality isn't a necessary component.

That said, I'm not being harsh on Halo, nothing I've said about the game is untrue just because you happen to disagree with the current view of Bioshock. If you wish to take the focus off Bioshock and give more credit the the line of franchise as a whole, I will do so, but it proves my point even more. To suggest anyone is being harsh on Halo here is ridiculous, I'm certainly not. If you take issue with me not giving proper credit to a series, fine, but I'm not doing Halo an injustice.

To claim they did with Bioshock the same as I quoted is also a bit out there, considering the point of the quote was for people to stop settling for constant God of Wars or Devil May Crys. To suggest Bioshock falls in with such repetitive gaming creativity is quite off target in my opinion, not so for Halo.

-AC

No, the reason it is called a spiritual successor is because they no longer have the license to make it the ACTUAL successor. if you then palette swapped it and said the Utopia was in the future rather than the past- you would have SSIII.

I am afraid there's no way in hell you can say the gameplay is not 100% identical. It just IS. Simple as that. I was playing virtually the exact same game when I played Bioshock. And I feel it precisely falls in line with what you quoted. As a game, Bioshock is just a simple re-make of stuff they have done before. It's added nothing, it's just blended what was already there very well.

I cannot get across strongly enough just how identical to SS2 it actually is. Gameplay, game structure, enemy behaviour, player abilities, execution of events, game plot, the nature of the enemies (genetic alterations of the exact same type), the plot of the game hero... frankly I think Bioshock is a massive vindication of you not needing to be innovative at all. If the first game in a franchise was innovative, you cannot say the third game is if it is still doing the same things. Bioshock is doing just that.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, the reason it is called a spiritual successor is because they no longe rhave the license to make it the ACTUAL successor.

I am afraid there's no way in hell you can say the gameplay is not 100% identical. It just IS. Simple as that. I was playing virutally the exact same game when I played Bioshock. And I feel it precisely falls in line with what you quoted.

Well you can feel whatever you wish, there are people who feel that Doom still hasn't been beaten, but that's what makes the world go round.

Coming in and saying "There's no way in hell you can say *Something*" is pointless because, yes, there is and yes, I can. Yes, I have and yes, I will continue to.

You're not the principal of the line, Seymour.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I cannot get across strongly enough just how identical to SS2 it actually is. Gameplay, game structure, enemy behaviour, player abilities, execution of events, game plot... frankly I think Bioshock is a massive vindication of you not needing to be innovative at all. If the first game in a franchise was innovative, you cannot say the third game is if it is still doing the same things. Bioshock is doing just that.

If two games ever have done things in some of the same ways, not all, some, and Bioshock is a game clearly ahead of its time, I cannot get across strongly enough how silly I FEEL it is for you not to say it's an innovative game.

Like I said, and like you didn't reply to, if you feel the series isn't being given enough credit or that Bioshock is getting too much, fair enough, but my point was that as you said, it's part of an innovative series that was created to push boundaries and in some way, shape or form, including gameplay in this day and age, is doing so again. Halo isn't, is it? No. People outside of the company or people making it will be playing catch up for a while, nobody's playing catch up with Halo.

You are letting YOUR personal bias of "Well, it's a sequel." cloud the fact that it's still an innovative game.

-AC

It's not innovative because the game structure is totally identical to their last game. TOTALLY. Very simple really.

3rd game in the series. Identical gameplay. Not innovative. Brilliant, but only the setting is original in any way.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well you can feel whatever you wish, there are people who feel that Doom still hasn't been beaten, but that's what makes the world go round.

Coming in and saying "There's no way in hell you can say *Something*" is pointless because, yes, there is and yes, I can. Yes, I have and yes, I will continue to.

You're not the principal of the line, Seymour.

-AC

Ok, there is no way in hell you can say it and maintain any amount of sense behind your statements.

The games are so similar that to try and deny it is breathtakingly silly.

Incidentally I never said it hasn't been beaten., Bioshock is a better game. But not better on any grounds of innovation, which it really does not have.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's not innovative because the game structure is totally identical to their last game. TOTALLY. Very simple really.

3rd game in the series. Identical gameplay. Not innovative. Brilliant, but only the setting is original in any way.

So Bioshock, in the current gaming market, is not ahead of it's time, not innovative, not pushing any boundaries whatsoever, compared to the three, ENTIRELY non-innovative games that are Halo, simply because two much older games came before it?

That's a bullshit claim.

The gameplay is still innovative, though. You, of all people, should know the difference between being original and how you don't necessarily need to be original to be innovative.

It's still doing things now that aren't being done in any other FPS, Halo didn't bring ANYTHING new, neither did Halo 2, neither will 3, where as Bioshock is a game that people will definitely be playing catch up to. It's the best FPS out right now in every way in my opinion, and the reason is because the ideas contained within are innovative, not original, innovative.

So you can stamp your feet some more if you'd like, it's not going to make a difference.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The games are so similar that to try and deny it is breathtakingly silly.

Incidentally I never said it hasn't been beaten., Bioshock is a better game. But not better on any grounds of innovation, which it really does not have.

It's as silly for someone who, considering his profession, should have a relatively decent grasp of word definition, to say that because it has two predecessors that carry similar elements, it's not an innovative game at all.

Original? No, never said it was. Innovative? Yes, in the current gaming climate, it is, compared to the likes of Halo, which is a basic FPS with better graphics. Bioshock isn't a basic FPS.

-AC

Basically, your argument is caught out in a fatal flaw that renders it completely void- Bioshock is not great because it is innovative. In fact it is great in te oppostie direction- it's derivative, but brilliantly so, it has improved on everything they did. Nothing new, but everything better.

So no. It's not innovative. That, I am afraid, is a fact. The only people who think it is innovative are saying so from a position if ignorance.

Considering my profression- yup, I know exactly what I am talking about, and exactly why you are wrong. And it is way beyond just having similar elements. Way, way beyond. It is a sequel in all but name and graphics, as much of a development as Halo 3 is to 2, for sure.

So you can talk about me stamping my feet all you llike. Point is I'm just right and it is foolish to contend it. You just cannot escape the logic of it no matter how much you try and talk your way out of it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Basically, your argument is caught out in a fatal flaw that renders it completely void- Bioshock is not great because it is innovative. In fact it is great in te oppostie direction- it's derivative, but brilliantly so, it has improved on everything they did. Nothing new, but everything better.

And you make the fatal flaw assuming I think it's a great game because it's innovative, I don't. Substance over style always, however, it is an innovative game. The ideas in that FPS are innovative, not original, innovative.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
So no. It's not innovative. That, I am afraid, is a fact. The only people who think it is innovative are saying so from a position if ignorance.

Why? Because they disagree with you? It's not a fact that it's not an innovative game, it's a fact that it's not entirely original, not a fact that it's not innovative. You're not entitled to your own facts.

The ideas from System Shock, System Shock II? Those are in Bioshock, ergo, it's not wholly original, right? Right. Are those ideas massively popular, recurring and repetitively produced throughout the gaming and more specifically, FPS market? No. Therefore, it's still an innovative idea.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Considering my profression- yup, I know exactly what I am talking about, and exactly why you are wrong. And it is way beyond just having similar elements. Way, way beyond. It is a sequel in all but name and graphics, as much of a development as Halo 3 is to 2, for sure.

Now you're just acting out of childish rebellion, saying things for the sake of it because you're starting to dislike the attention Bioshock gets, due to some antiquity driven appreciation for System Shock II. It sucks that the game isn't getting the credit it deserves, but you're not giving Bioshock or the FRANCHISE CREATORS the credit of having innovative ideas that are remaining so to this day, in terms of gameplay.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
So you can talk about me stamping my feet all you llike. Point is I'm just right and it is foolish to contend it. You just cannot escape the logic of it no matter how much you try and talk your way out of it.

Yes, you've done all this "It's foolish to resist." stuff before, Ush. You're starting to become like Halo yourself, not only going around in a ring, but repeating the same tired technique, and it's just as boring.

You ultimately take the ridiculous stance of claiming Bioshock isn't an innovative game because it's not original, and that is stupid.

-AC